The current space race in Asia, mainly between China, Japan, and India, could …

Asia’s current space race could turn into an arms race akin to the Cold War, according to James Clay Moltz, a professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School. He makes that argument in a recent Nature commentary.

The major Asian nations, including China, Japan, India, and South Korea, are all expanding their space programs with little-to-no cooperation. These efforts are driven by national prestige and geopolitical rivalries, similar to the US-Soviet space race of the 1960s. Like that period, this space race is stimulating technological advances, but competing agendas are leading to duplication of work and mistrust—in other words, a waste of resources. Even worse, this competition is undermining recent cooperation between the US, Russia, and Europe.

Unlike the Western Hemisphere, Asia doesn’t have any regional security organizations like NATO, the EU, or CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization, a post-USSR followup to the Warsaw Pact). Add to this long-standing feuds between specific nations—China-India, India-Pakistan, North Korea-South Korea, China-Japan, Vietnam-China, to name a few—and increasing military tensions, says Moltz, and you have a civilian space race that could turn into an arms race.

Competing for space

China, Japan, and India, the three Asian leaders in space, are all increasing their launch activity as they deploy satellite constellations for both civilian and military uses. China had the same number of launches as the US (15) last year, while Japan had two and India three. Japan’s annual space budget is the highest, at $3.8 billion, compared to China’s estimated $2.2 billion and India’s $1.3 billion. But China and India have an estimated 80,000 and 32,000 civilian space personnel, respectively, to Japan’s 8,300. For comparison, NASA’s 2011 budget is $18.724 billion and it carries about 19,000 employees.

Each of these nations has performed separate lunar-mapping missions since 2007, with planned follow ups of rovers, landers, and lunar bases—but no cooperation, even though a lot of the work will be redundant.

Japan has the most human spaceflight experience, with 15 manned flights since 1992 and a membership in the International Space Station, but it has always hitchhiked with the US or Russia; the country doesn’t have its own personnel transport vehicle. China launched its first astronaut in 2003 (via the Shenzhou-5), with multiple followups since. Most recently, it launched the Tiangong-1, an orbital test module for a planned 2020 space station. India, threatened by China’s recent rise, announced a planned manned flight in 2016.

In addition to human spaceflight efforts, the three major nations are also building their own supplements to the US-maintained Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite network. GPS is freely accessible but foreign nations are understandably concerned about relying on technology controlled by the US government. China has already deployed one third of its planned 35-satellite BeiDou network. Japan—a close US ally, and therefore likely more comfortable using GPS—is building the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), a three-satellite augmentation to GPS to better cover South Asia. India also plans to launch a South Asian satellite network, called the GPS-Aided Geo Augmented Navigation (or GAGAN) System.

Smaller Asian nations, like Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Taiwan, are also building their own satellite-communications networks with help from larger partners, both in Asia and abroad. China, India, and Japan are also cooperating in some ways with US, Europe, and Russia, but not with each other.

Recently, some of the previously civilian-only space development started to move into military applications, specifically satellite interceptors. China destroyed an old satellite in 2007 with a ground-based weapon, creating more than 3,000 pieces of orbital debris. In response, both India and Japan announced offensive and defensive anti-satellite weapons.

Opportunities for cooperation

The biggest question in the face of this rising tension is, of course: what should be done? Getting the big three (China, Japan, and India) to cooperate on space development probably isn’t quite as difficult as the US and Soviet Union during the 1960s-era space race (although the same can’t be said for South and North Korea), but space relations are intrinsically linked to regional politics and rivalries.

To their credit, China and Japan both formed regional space groups: the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) and Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum (APRSAF), respectively, but there hasn’t been any cooperation between the groups, and members of each are limited to less-developed nations such as Bangladesh, Mongolia, Peru, and Thailand.

In addition, the recent natural disasters in the region sparked some data exchanges and networking among nations; APSCO and APRSAF could cooperate more in this area. China, Japan, and India also joined NASA’s Global Exploration Strategy, and expressed interest in data exchanges under the umbrella of the International Lunar Network. Moltz suggests that a human spaceflight initiative between China and Japan, like the US-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz docking in 1975, could help improve cooperation.

However, he says the most important issue is an easing of military tensions. The US and Soviet Union pledged satellite non-interference in 1972, but the new space powers haven’t even agreed to this yet. Orbital debris threatens the satellites and vehicles of all space-faring nations, so this might be the basis for talks aimed at ending development of satellite-killing weapons.

Another route to talks might be through the US. The government called for "responsible behavior" in space in 2010 but, due to congressional opposition, hasn’t pursued this much yet. Cooperation with China could downplay Asian rivalries and help develop shared interests in space, potentially leading towards global space efforts—exploration of space being in the interests of humankind, rather than just the citizens of specific nations.

Whether through Asian or US leadership, or a shared disaster, cooperation on space activities needs to grow to avert an arms race and potential conflict, warns Moltz.

Kyle Niemeyer
Kyle is a science writer for Ars Technica. He is a postdoctoral scholar at Oregon State University and has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Case Western Reserve University. Kyle's research focuses on combustion modeling. Emailkyleniemeyer.ars@gmail.com//Twitter@kyle_niemeyer

43 Reader Comments

Considering the dependence of the US military on satellites, and how incredibly vulnerable they are, I wouldn't be surprised if they "stuxnetted" the Chinese space program.

Otherwise things are going to get incredibly ugly. Satellites are poorly defended and it wouldn't take much to destroy hundreds of them if you launched some fairly basic weapons on a satellite in space.

A somewhat banal and disingenuous argument considering that the US-USSR rivalries did not result in technology exchange between them (other than probably through industrial espionage). So why does the author expect something similar between the Asian rivals ? Some critical technologies are best developed in-house, so that dual-use technologies are not held hostage to the ups and downs of political deadlocks. It is not as if the West is very eager to give the technologies they have developed so far to the other large nations now coming up in the development ladder. The Russians have been more forth coming in doing so, considering their cooperation with the Chinese (before the Sino-Soviet freeze) and the Indians (1950s-present). It is the West which has tried to foment problems in these relationships by pressuring the Russians (e.g. US pressurized Russia to not give India cryogenic rocket technology in the 90s, and India eventually developed her own).

How could we possible manage to cooperate when we have built our entire societal paradigm on combat? We call it "competition" when we don't mean immediate combat with weaponry, but it's still ritualized combat. This is in every nation of the world, and when you think about that and the kind of horrifying behavior that a money-based society directly encourages and requires if you're going to be "successful", it's stunning that we manage to cooperate at all in any situation. That is going to have to change, and quickly.

Why would China or any other nation need to kill people or satellites? That's just antiquated outmoded thinking that we have to get away from as a species. We're just one people - homo sapiens, in some minor color variations across the globe by the accidents of history and isolation that existed before we lived in the modern era.

The only reason humans suffer and experience resource shortages today is because we use such insane ways to apportion our resources. Because of the national barriers and locking resources up behind those and walls of ownership instead of sharing equitably and using the resources wisely and scientifically, we instead waste resources like mad and go to war to secure them when they aren't made available. We let people starve to death because they lack money, too - not because the calories don't exist on the planet. We put resources into the world's militaries in such staggering quantities that we use up the amount of money on that in about 8 days that would feed the world - for a year.

Basically, we have to stop the insanity as a species and start using the brains we've evolved to actually think about society, and we have to apply the scientific method to social concerns as well instead of just going on the usual "ritualized combat" and making decisions by listening to mere opinions by people who have a lifetime of cultural damage dictating their responses (which would be all of us.)

This threat is a bit overblown. Building new weapons is never a good thing but luckily the massive economic interdependence between nations today (including between India, China and Japan) is the strongest defense of peace the world has ever had. It's the dis-connected and marginalized nations like North Korea and Iran that are biggest concern.

This threat is a bit overblown. Building new weapons is never a good thing but luckily the massive economic interdependence between nations today (including between India, China and Japan) is the strongest defense of peace the world has ever had. It's the dis-connected and marginalized nations like North Korea and Iran that are biggest concern.

Yeah and when we talk about them in terms of how disconnected and concerning they are they become even more so!

This article does read a little bit like a defence analyst has created a fictional threat to justify his own job and makes the assumption, surely, that not having a don't shoot down satellites pact means that you will automatically threaten to shoot down each other's satellites!

How could we possible manage to cooperate when we have built our entire societal paradigm on combat? We call it "competition" when we don't mean immediate combat with weaponry, but it's still ritualized combat.

As you point out, competition exists in all nations because human nature is such that people only function up to their potential when there is a reason too. In the case of economics it's the only way to maximize output. It's not that the system spoils the people it's that the nature of people dictates the system of competition we have (in a broad sense, there is room for huge amounts of variation in the specifics). This is better illustrated by pointing to the adversarial legal system that we've constructed precisely because of these limits of human nature.

Space and defense industry has always been linked, this is no news.That said, portraying the existence of rivalry in space between the major Asian powers as similar to the cold war US-USSR state of pseudo-war seems alarmist at best.

There are also some really weird points in the argument - the lack of a regional "security organisation" while giving NATO as an example seems quite weird considering NATO involvement in Asia (even ignoring the Middle East and Afghanistan). South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia are all close NATO allies with frequent joint exercises and a massive NATO presense in the region.There is no pan-asian equivalent to the EU or NATO because there are significantly opposed interests between several of the relevant countries. Rivalries don't disappear because there is a forum to meet in (otherwise the UN should be sufficient), and to suggest that there is an acute need for talks and mediation to avoid war is absurd.

Suggesting the US as the main mediator between India, China and Japan also seems a bit ignorant. The US is a close ally of Japan, and currently considers China one of its major rivals (if not the major rival) economically, politically and militarily. And the Chinese space program is independent in lage part because the US didn't want them as part of the ISS in the first place (and now the Chinese don't really care since their space program is going quite well on its own).

I'm not saying the issue is irrelevant, but the space race isn't creating these tensions - there is a space race because of the existing tension.

The major Asian nations, including China, Japan, India, and South Korea, are all expanding their space programs with little-to-no cooperation. These efforts are driven by national prestige and geopolitical rivalries, similar to the US-Soviet space race of the 1960s. Like that period, this space race is stimulating technological advances, but competing agendas are leading to duplication of work and mistrust—in other words, a waste of resources. Even worse, this competition is undermining recent cooperation between the US, Russia, and Europe.

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Multinational cooperative projects have a tendency of getting hung up by internal jockeying. Furthermore terribly inefficient compromises end up being made, as the various parties to the project compete to bring home development business that may have been more efficiently done elsewhere.

At least having separate Asian space programs can allow for a wide variety of strategies to be tried out, allowing the best to succeed, rather than going all-in on a single strategy decided by a multinational committee.

The potential for an arms race is of course more concerning, but I don't know that separate Asian space programs is necessarily a bad idea.

This is unsurprising. The only thing that has kept space from being militarized for the past twenty years is the fact that the US and Russia more or less agreed to ignore space. The nature of satellites and orbits means that nobody who wants to stay secure can afford to ignore space anymore. I would be very surprised if the air-force didn't have at least rudimentary anti-satellite capability at this point. Who knows what some of those DoD satellites can do in addition to taking pictures.

What he's saying is like suggesting that the Olympics might lead to war, so don't train athletes or hold competition... as if the Berlin games caused W.W. II....

Quote:

The biggest question in the face of this rising tension is, of course: what should be done?

By whom? Western tentacles? It's a pompous question, typical of intelligence analysts (vested war mongers) who are trying to start trouble. There is no rising tension, and god help us if someone like Moltz asks "what should be done?" within earshot of our cult-sponsored presidents.

I think the US navy can shot down satellites using a AEGIS launched missile.

That seems incredibly unlikely, as they are way too small. I guess it's conceivable that they could get a very small payload up to LEO and run it into a satellite, which might be enough, but there's no chance of it getting to GEO or higher.

Quote:

By whom? Western tentacles? It's a pompous question, typical of intelligence analysts (vested war mongers) who are trying to start trouble. There is no rising tension, and god help us if someone like Moltz asks "what should be done?" within earshot of our cult-sponsored presidents.

There is inevitable rising tension when rivals have a foothold in space. When the technological equivalent of dropping a rock can give you a nuclear sized explosion anywhere on the globe, it would be irresponsible to ignore it. While I don't think the west will initiate a war with China or India, it has to be taken into consideration.

1. i suspect the Japanese extension to GPS will be using 3 active sats with 1 on standby in case any of the others should fail.

2. Funny how when corporations compete it is a good thing, but when nations do it there is a focus on waste and fear of military escalation.

+1Competition is a good thing. It forces them all to feel the need to one up each other, speeding up progress. Sure if they worked together they wouldn't duplicate their work but they also wouldn't have anything motivating them to work faster. Plus haven't multiple bodies come up with multiple solutions to the same problem results in better ideas for all in the end. Eventually they will start to share their old techs as they become irrelevant in the face of more advanced technologies and everyone will end up with the best solution, instead of just having a solution.

The next James Bond film, "Dragon Eyes" where Bond has to thwart a plan by yet another military regime who want to destroy targets around the globe. But James can only get the job done with the help of the sexy computer programmer (played by Lucy Lu) after he saves her from certain death since she learned of her country's secret plans.

I think the US navy can shot down satellites using a AEGIS launched missile.

That seems incredibly unlikely, as they are way too small. I guess it's conceivable that they could get a very small payload up to LEO and run it into a satellite, which might be enough, but there's no chance of it getting to GEO or higher.

The bigger problem, which no one is talking about yet, is how are they gonna keep the ISS from smelling like curry once the Indians arrive?

Aside from the idea that "smelling like curry" is a type of comment widely considered to be insensitive and not really humorous at all, having the ISS smell like curry might be an improvement, since it's known that the ISS currently smells like ass. (no shower + zero ventilation)

[quote="cr0ft"]How could we possible manage to cooperate when we have built our entire societal paradigm on combat? We call it "competition" when we don't mean immediate combat with weaponry, but it's still ritualized combat. This is in every nation of the world, and when you think about that and the kind of horrifying behavior that a money-based society directly encourages and requires if you're going to be "successful", it's stunning that we manage to cooperate at all in any situation. That is going to have to change, and quickly.

It is horribly ignorant to equate combat and competition. They are not the same, though they are related. The big difference that you seem to be ignoring is that in competition, both sides are objectively stronger than had they not competed. Would you ever care to run a four second 40 yard dash if there wasn't somebody to compete with? Most people wouldn't. And even though only one person can win any given race, the competition makes everybody strive to better themselves in order to compete. Another example is chess -- the discipline of chess is only learned through competition, but the benefits for the life of the mind are real. Regardless, at the end of a chess game, generally both sides come away with a better understanding of the game. Both are improved for having competed, regardless of who won.

Combat, on the other hand, seeks to win through literally destroying the other - by weakening them. There may also be seeking to be at one's best, but inevitably one or both will come out ruined.

Which continent do you think India is in? I'll give you points if you say "India is a subcontinent", but the fact is that India is part of Asia.

I'm assuming your basing your comment on the fact that in the USA "Asian" colloquially means people from China and the surrounding nations. Consider this, if you call someone Asian in the UK, most people will think that you are referring to people of Indian or Pakistani origin.

South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia are all close NATO allies with frequent joint exercises and a massive NATO presense in the region.

I didn't think Australia had anything to do with NATO, other than being allies to NATO nations (which is quite different). And I'm not convinced joint excercises do anything to strengthen ties.

We conduct joint military excercises quite often with Indonesia (which is a political sticking point at times), but that doesn't reduce tension between us. In the late 90's Australia sent troops into Indonesia for "peacekeeping" and to "monitor the East Timor referendum". But all that did was make matters worse, resulting in a terrorist attack against Australians in Bali in 2002. (Indonesians felt we sent our military into Indonesia to ensure the referendum went the way we wanted, so we could steal East Timor's resources, and there's some truth to that.)

While duplication of effort is generally bad, I can see the different Asian nations going about their space programs in different ways. Surely this is a good thing, with different approaches to solving problems. Instead of the single style of technology that the western nations recieved from NASA, I can see all sorts of benefits filtering down the general polulations in these Asian countries.

Asian countries (especially China) are constantly derided for "copying" other countries technology instead of creating their own, but now it's bad that they're not? It's not the 1950s anymore, the Asians aren't stupid enough recreate our mistakes. Give them more credit than that.

eXceLon wrote:

Multinational cooperative projects have a tendency of getting hung up by internal jockeying. Furthermore terribly inefficient compromises end up being made, as the various parties to the project compete to bring home development business that may have been more efficiently done elsewhere.

I hadn't even considered that. Even more reason to be happy about separate programs!

But the reality is this will just mean more junk flying around in LEO which does little other than duplicate functions that are already covered.

From previous articles I've read years ago, the Chinese are planning a permanent moon base (you'll remember Bush announced vague and nonspecific NASA support and plans in response, support and plans which never materialised). From memory, they're moon base is planned for construction by 2020.

The Indians announced similar plans, but without specifying a time frame.

I'll guess that surface based beam installations will eventually be able to down any satellite at will.

From Earth, or the moon? I'm pretty certain that the atmosphere will diffract a surface based beam too much to harm a satellite. A moon based laser might work, but the distance involved is almost certainly too long to do any damage, especially with whatever small power source someone manages to haul up to the moon.

The key to space combat is that nobody can afford to have a war break out, because everything up there is a sitting duck. Whoever strikes first is likely to "win", but unless you destroy a nation's entire space launch capability, there's nothing stopping them from taking out your space installations afterward. You can make stealth rocks, launch them from the other side of the planet, and the satellites, space stations, moon bases, etc won't even see them coming. Until we get much more powerful point defense lasers or some kind of energy shielding (still sci-fi), a space war will be very quick, and everyone will lose. No rational nation will start a space war, and any smaller crazy nation that gets too aggressive will likely have their space capability removed by a coalition of the big players, who depend on satellites for their economy.

Pretty much. At least a space war will not destroy humanity, it will just sent the world into an economic black hole. Satellites can be replaced, the main long term issue will be all the left over debris in orbit.